Karnataka High Court
Sri. Abu Sali @ M.S Apsarali vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
CRL.P No. 6787 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6787 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. ABU SALI @ M.S APSARALI,
S/O K SOOFI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OFFICE AT SAYYAD COMPLEX,
MANJOTTY, PERMANU POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI REPRSENTED BY S.P.P.,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. KARUNAKARA POOJARY,
S/O THIMMAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT PULITTAPADDU HOUSE,
MANCHI VILLAGE,
BANTWALA TALUK,
D.K. - 574 323.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
CRL.P No. 6787 of 2024
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SESSIONS CASE NO.37/2024
HAVING BEEN SPLIT UP FROM MAIN CASE VIDE
S.C.NO.90/2005 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE II ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 504, 447, 427, 435, 324, 326,
506(ii) AND 307 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
proceedings in S.C.No.37/2024 - a split up case arising out of
S.C.No.90/2005.
2. Heard Sri. Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Thejesh P., learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material
on record.
3. The petitioner is accused No.6. He along with others
gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.4/2004 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 509, 447, 427,
435, 324, 326, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
police after investigation file a charge sheet and the matter was
tried before the Court of Session in S.C.No.37/2024. On
31.10.2012, the Court of Session convicts all the accused
therein for the afore-quoted offences. The said conviction was
called in question by the accused, filed an appeal before this
Court in Crl.A.No.241/2018 and connected matters. The said
criminal appeal comes to be disposed by the Division Bench in
terms of its order dated 04.04.2024, whereby all the accused
are acquitted except accused No.1. The finding rendered by the
Division Bench was undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the
petitioner, as the Division Bench clearly holds that the
ingredients that are necessary for the offence to become
punishable under Section 149 of the IPC is not satisfied against
accused Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16. The petitioner is
accused No.6. Therefore, the reasons so rendered by the
Division Bench and the finding would clearly enure to the
benefit of the petitioner. The reason so rendered by the
Division Bench reads as follows:
"21. The prosecution in order to prove the injuries
sustained by PWs.1 to 4 has examined PW23-Dr. Prajeeth
Hegde. He has stated that Exs.P11 to P14-Wound Certificates
are issued by his colleague, Medical Officer namely, Dr.
Gopalkrishna Bhat, who is no more. PW23 has identified the
signature of Dr. Gopalakrishna Bhat on these Wound
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
Certificates and has reiterated the medical opinion given by Dr.
Gopalakrishna Bhat in the Wound Certificates. PW23 in the
cross-examination admits that in Exs.P.11 to 14-Wound
Certificates, there is no mention of weapons which caused the
injuries. The evidence of PW23 corroborates the evidence of
PWs.1 to 4 as to injury they sustained in the incident.
Therefore, there is consistency in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4
and the medical evidence-PW23 and their evidence does not
suffer from any infirmity. Thus, the prosecution is able to
establish that PWs.1 to 4 have sustained injuries as mentioned
in Exs.P.11 to 14 and PW1 underwent treatment at Mangaluru
Hospital.
22. The prosecution in order to prove the spot mahazar-
Ex.P2, examined PW5-Savitha, the wife of PW1. PW15-
Krishnappa Belchada and Vittala Prabhu (PW12 in S.C. No.
87/2008). They have stated that on 7-1-2004 at
9:00 a.m., the Police visited the scene of offence i.e., in front of
the house of PW1, conducted spot mahazar in their presence
and collected four wooden clubs, two stones, broken tiles'
pieces, soda bottle piece, bloodstained soil, sample soil and
match box as per MOs.6 to 15 respectively. They have further
stated that the Investigating Officer also drew sketch as per
Ex.P9. From the evidence of PWs.5, 15 and Vittala Prabhu, it is
clear that eyewitness-PW5 had shown the place, where the
incident took place and the mahazar was drawn in the presence
of panchas and at that time, Ex.P9 sketch was drawn. There is
no discrepancy in the testimonies of PWs.5, 15 and Vittala
Prabhu. The evidence of PWs.5, 15 and Vittala Prabhu
corroborated by the testimonies of injured witnesses.
Therefore, the testimonies of PWs.5, 15 and Vittala Prabhu with
regard to drawing of spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, sketch as per
Ex.P9, and collection of aforesaid articles is believable.
23. The prosecution in order to prove the recovery of
bloodstained clothes of PWs.1 and 2, examined PW13- M.
Bhoja and PW14-Vishwanatha. In their evidence, they have
clearly stated that on 15-1-2004, PW14, the brother of PW1,
produced bloodstained clothes of PWs.1 and 2 i.e., bloodstained
shirt, lungi and another bloodstained lungi. Therefore, the
Investigating Officer seized these three articles under Ex.P3-
seizure mahazar.
24. In order to prove the recovery of weapons and
bloodstained clothes of accused No.1, PW16-Krishna and PW17-
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
Sanjeeva were examined on oath. They have stated that on 15-
1-2004, accused No.1 was in the custody of the Police he
confessed to produce the weapons used in the commission of
offence and his bloodstained clothes. Accordingly, he led to his
house, produced two talwars-MOs.4 and 5 and his bloodstained
pant and shirt as per MOs.16 and 17, the Police seized the
same drawing the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4. PW17
identified the talwars and clothes seized under Ex.P4, but PW16
did not identify it. From perusal of the testimonies of PWs.16
and 17, it is clear that accused No.1 was in the custody of the
Police, he led PWs.16, 17 and the Police to his house, showed
two talwars and his bloodstained shirt and pant. It shows that
MOs.4, 5, 16 and 17 were recovered at the instance of accused
No.1. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.16 and 17 can be
considered against accused No.1 with regard to recovery made
under Ex.P4.
25. Further, the prosecution relied upon FSL report-
Ex.P7 which clearly establishes that the clothes of PWs.1 and 2,
accused No.1 and talwars were stained with 'O' blood group.
The evidence of seizure mahazar witnesses and the evidence of
Investigating Officer shows the Police seized bloodstained
clothes of PWs.1 and 2, accused No.1 and talwars under Exs.P3
and P4-mahazars. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 (injured
witnesses) and PWs.13, 14, 16 and 17 (seizure mahazar
witnesses) and PW22-Investigating Officer clearly establishes
that the clothes of PWs.1 and 2 were stained with 'O' blood
group and the clothes of accused No.1 were stained with 'O'
blood group and MOs.4 and 5-talwars were also stained with 'O'
blood group. However, accused No.1 has not explained as to
how his clothes, MOs.16 and 17 got bloodstains and that too of
'O' group blood. Non-explanation of accused No.1 regarding
bloodstains on MOs.16 and 17 that becomes additional link to
connect him to crime.
26. In this case, the prosecution was successful in
proving the motive. According to injured witnesses-PWs.1 to 4,
there was quarrel between PW11-Prema, Mohan Moolya (PW9
in S.C. No.87/2008) and the accused in the morning hour of 6-
1-2004 and accused Nos.1 and 2 thought that PW1 had also
involved in the said quarrel. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2
came along with other accused to the house of PW1, insulted
PW1 and assaulted PWs.1 and 2 on their shoulders and caused
bleeding injuries. At that point of time, when PWs.3 and 4 tried
to pacify the quarrel, the accused also assaulted them with
stones and clubs. Hence, they too, sustained bleeding injuries.
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
Thereafter, PW13-M. Bhoja shifted PWs.1 and 2 to SCS
hospital, Mangaluru, for treatment.
27. It is also evident from the records that the Police
visited the spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2, arrested the
accused, recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 and at
his instance, the Investigating Officer recovered incriminating
material under Exs.P3 and P4-seizure mahazars. We have also
given our due consideration to the evidence of PW23-Medical
Officer, who examined PWs.1 to 4 and issued Wound
Certificates as per Exs.P11 to P14. We find from the evidence
of PWs.1 to 4 that the prosecution proved the scuffle that took
place in front of the house of PW1 between accused Nos.1 and
2 and in that process, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PWs.1
and 2 with talwars and when PWs.3 and 4 came to pacify the
quarrel, they also sustained injuries.
28. In assessing the value of the evidence of eyewitness,
two principle considerations are whether in the circumstance of
the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of
occurrence. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PWs.5 to 10,
they were present at the scene of occurrence, PWs.1 to 4
sustained injuries in the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2 with
talwars and they were taken to hospital for treatment. The
evidence of PW23-Doctor corroborates with the oral testimonies
of PWs.1 to 4. Therefore, their testimonies will not tend to any
improbabilities, and we do not find any ground to doubt or
discredit the veracity of their oral testimonies. Therefore, PWs.1
to 4 being injured witnesses and PWs.5 to 10 being
eyewitnesses to the incident, their presence at the scene of
offence was natural, and with normal human conduct or
behavior, and thus, can be acted upon.
29. Learned counsel for the accused contended that
there are major contradictions in the testimonies of PWs.1 to
10. He contended that PWs.5 to 10 are planted eyewitnesses.
It is to be noted that when these eyewitnesses and injured
witnesses knew the accused prior to the incident and at the
time of incident, they saw the accused from close distance with
the aid of lights from the house of PW1 when accused Nos.1
and 2 inflicted bleeding injuries. There was no reason to doubt
the truth of testimonies of PWs.1 to 4-injured witnesses and
PWs.5 to 10-eyewitnesses. Therefore, the question of planting
eyewitnesses would not arise. Contrary to the evidence of
PWs.1 to 4-injured witnesses and PWs.5 to 10- eyewitnesses,
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
the accused have not placed any material to discredit their
testimonies.
30. Learned counsel for the accused contended that in
Ex.P6-FIR, the names of all the accused do not find place and
there is delay in lodging the complaint and registration of FIR.
We have perused the contents of FIR and complaint-Ex.P1. In
paragraph No.6 of the FIR, the names of accused Nos.1 and 2 is
mentioned, but the names of accused Nos.3 to 16 are not
mentioned, but registering authority has stated that other 20 to
25 muslim youths, residents of Panjalu, Neerbail and Kukkaje
are also involved in the incident.
31. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that PW1
has not stated the names of accused Nos.3 to 16 in the
complaint. So also, the Police Officer, who registered the FIR
also fails to mention the names and particulars of accused
Nos.3 to 16. In the present case, initially, the case was
registered only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and other 20 to 25
muslim youths from Panjalu, Neerbail and Kukkaje. PWs.1 to 4
have stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PWs.1 to 4 and
there is no cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence with
regard to other accused. Even injured witnesses fail to name
accused Nos.3 to 16 in the incident though they are acquainted
with each other.
32. In this case, the material witnesses have stated that
names of the accused were furnished to them by the Police,
particularly, PW22-K.U. Belliyappa, Sub-Inspector of Police. In
the evidence of these material witnesses, they are not very
certain about the presence of accused Nos.3 to 16 at the time
of alleged incident, but they have generally stated that accused
Nos.3 to 16 were also present.
33. If the entire evidence is assessed, PW1 promptly
lodged the complaint-Ex.P1 without any delay regarding assault
made by accused Nos.1 and 2 on PWs.1 to 4. Spot and seizure
mahazar witnesses have clearly stated about the mahazars
drawn in their presence. Contrary to this evidence, the accused
have not placed any material to raise suspicion in the case of
the prosecution.
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
34. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence available
on record, we are of the opinion that merely because PWs.1 to
4 have stated about accused Nos.3 to 16 and their presence at
the scene of incident, in the facts and circumstance of the case
and also having regard to the inconsistencies and contradictions
found in their evidence, we are of the opinion that it is not
possible to hold accused Nos.3 to 16 guilty of the offences
alleged against them by invoking the theory of being members
of unlawful assembly and sharing common object of accused
Nos.1 and 2.
35. The trial Court was of the opinion that, accused
Nos.1 to 16 were the members of unlawful assembly, they
committed rioting by holding talwars, clubs, stones, etc. and
assaulted PWs.1 to 4, intentionally insulted them to provoke
breach of peace, criminally intimidated them, damaged roof
tiles, cut telephone wires, burnt auto rickshaw, etc. The
prosecution has not placed any material to show that auto
rickshaw was burnt, except the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 10.
As per the spot mahazar, nothing is recovered to establish that
auto rickshaw was burnt in front of the house of PW1.
36. Underlining that Section 149 of IPC provides for
constructive liability of every person of an unlawful assembly,
formation of unlawful assembly, having its common object and
knowledge of the common object, are matters of fact, which are
required to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubt for securing the conviction of an accused under Section
149 of IPC. In order to attract Section 149 of IPC, the following
three essentials have to be satisfied:
(i) there must be unlawful assembly;
(ii) commission of offence may be by any member of
unlawful assembly;
(iii) such offence must have been committed in
prosecution of the common object of the assembly or
must be such as a member of the assembly knew to be
likely to be committed.
Though this provision deals with the concept of
constructive liability, however, the same must not be so
stretched as to lead to the false implication of an innocent
person.
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
37. In the above discussion, it is found that out of the
three ingredients of offence under Section 149 of IPC was not
satisfied against accused Nos.3 to 16. Therefore, the charges
for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 read with
Section 149 of IPC do not sustain. Therefore, the charges
against accused Nos.3 to 16 are not proved.
38. Considering the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and material on record, we are of the opinion that
accused Nos.1 is guilty of the offences under Sections 326 and
324 of IPC for assault made on PWs.1 and 2.
39. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that accused No.1 committed the offences under Sections
326 and 324 of IPC and therefore, the trial Court has rightly
convicted accused No.1 for the offences charged and no
interference is called for.
40. However, the conviction of accused Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9,
11, 13, 14 and 16 in the absence of any material particulars is
unsustainable. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed in respect of those accused requires
interference by this Court.
41. Further, the trial Court has rightly acquitted accused
Nos.5, 10 and 15 and hence, the same does not require
interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, we pass
the following:
ORDER
I. Criminal Appeal No.241/2018 filed by the State is
dismissed;
II. Criminal Appeal No.1298/2012 is partly allowed. The
judgment of conviction dated 31-10-2012 and order on
sentence dated 2-11-2012 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru, in S.C. Nos.90/2005 and 12/2008 is
modified as follows:
i. Accused Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 16 are
acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if their
detention are not required in any other case;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
ii. *The impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence of accused No.1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC is
confirmed. However, he is acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC.
* Corrected vide Court Order dated 08/04/2024.
iii. Accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit of set off as
contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Trial
Court is directed to secure accused No.1 to serve
remaining part of the sentence.
III. Criminal Appeal No.1299/2012 is allowed. Accused
No.9 is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. He
shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not
required in any other case;
IV. The observations in the above judgment shall not bind
accused No.2 in his trial, and
Communicate a copy of this order to the trial Court and
the concerned Prison, forthwith."
The reason so rendered by the Division Bench to acquit
accused Nos.3 to 16 would undoubtedly enure to the benefit of
the petitioner, as he is accused No.6 and on par with accused
Nos.3 to 16.
4. In that light, without permitting further proceedings
to continue against this petitioner, the petition deserves to
succeed.
5. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering
identical set of facts has held as follows:
"12. Having heard the learned Advocates
appearing for parties and on perusal of records it
would disclose that petitioner/accused was never
traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him
was never executed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs
AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268
has held quashing of charge and order discharging
co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings
initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations
and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also
held that discharge of a co-accused by the High
Court by holding that no purpose would be served in
further proceeding with the case, is just and proper.
In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE
OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ
551 this Court has held as under:
"The petitioner is the accused in the case
and he is shown to be the absconding.
Therefore, the case against the petitioner
was split up and charge-sheet was laid
against other available accused Nos.1 and
3 for committing an offence punishable
under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34
Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial,
the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused
Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested
and proceedings were revived against him
in the split charge sheet.... In the instant
case also, the full pledged trial was held
against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of
the same offence. In the second round of
trial against the petitioner, the evidence
to be produced cannot be different from
the one that was produced by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore,
in that view of the matter, the proceeding
is quashed."
13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in
ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the
following effect:
"As the case before the Sessions Judge is
not a pending case, he cannot keep the
file any longer pending nor he can close
the case as he has to await appearance of
the accused or the production by the
State, for passing orders regarding
undergoing sentence. As such,
considering these peculiar facts and
circumstances, it is deemed proper to
exercise the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of
jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C.
in the interest of justice. As the entire
material evidence of the prosecutions is
one and the same, as against all the
accused including the non-appealing
accused No.1, who is said to be
absconding, there is no second opinion
that he is also entitled for the same
benefit of doubt as he is extended for his
co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt."
14. In this background, when the facts on
hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not
only complainant but also other witnesses including
the inmates of ambulance in which they were
travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile
in the proceedings which was continued against co-
accused. Though, P.W.1 - complainant had admitted
that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and
had also admitted that he has given a statement
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
identifying the accused before the Investigation
Officer, he did not identify the accused persons
present before Court. In fact, statements given by
him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he
denied the same and had also denied the suggestion
put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished
the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2
to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons
present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In
fact, they have not even identified the statements
made by them before the Investigating Officer and
nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-
examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus,
taking into consideration said evidence available on
record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion
that evidence of the witnesses examined by
prosecution would not come to their assistance. In
fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40,
who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have
also turned hostile and they have stated that police
had called them a year back to the police station and
when they went to the police station, they had not
seen any accused persons in police station. However,
they admit police having taken their signatures on
the papers and contents of it were not known to
them.
15. It is in this background, trial Court on
appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the
accused persons by holding that prosecution had
failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients
of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In
fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was
certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada
district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to
please on community of people, the Investigating
Officer might have falsely implicated the accused
persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be
received from the public or other community people
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this
background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in
the present petition is examined, it can be noticed
that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed
against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact,
it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to
23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in
S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had
been acquitted.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of
the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court
insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to
33 is similar and identical to the charge made against
the present petitioner. This Court does not find any
independent or separate material having been placed
by the prosecution against present petitioner to put
him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-
accused to undergo the order of trial, which
ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused
Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made
against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is
compared with the allegation made against present
petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are
identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no
independent decision can be taken against the
present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be
served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be
tried by the trial Court.
17. In view of the afore stated facts and the
law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would
emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that
would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal
order is passed in favour of accused - petitioner,
since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against
whom similar allegation had been made is already
acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah,
learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner
should not be extended said benefit, since he is an
absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said
contention for single reason that said judgment had
been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court
in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where
under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in
the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal,
should be extended to the appellant, since co-
accused had been acquitted and held that a
departure can be made in cases where accused has
not surrendered "after conviction" in addition to
not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such,
noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held
by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a
accused for same offence on same set of facts and
on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile
for acquittal of co-accused also.
18. In that view of the matter, present
proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the
file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in
Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural
Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar
petitioner is concerned.
In view of criminal petition having been disposed of
on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive
for consideration and same stands rejected."
6. In the light of there being no evidence against any
of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29965
being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would
become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no
evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was
not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate
the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.37/2024 pending before the
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru, stand quashed qua the
petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
